Talk:Juicy Salif

Older comments

I've just seen the stainless-steel version, in a kitchen, and its owner says it's very well designed for producing lemon juice, especially in view of its height above the table top, which positions the user's arm well for putting force on the fruit against the ridges. The extensions of the ridges down the side channels the juice very effectively, to the extent that a tiny cup, properly positioned, would catch all the juice. I'm removing the sentence about impracticality. --69.37.249.85 14:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's likely that the person to whom you spoke has not actually used it other than as an ornament, then. I was given one of these as a present by a friend who should have known better, and can confirm that it's entirely unfit for purpose: when you twist the lemon the legs do not grip the work surface, and the entire apparatus spins and tends to overturn, knocking the proposed receptacle over in the process. Unfortunately, my comment, like yours, is entirely irrelevant to this article as neither is adequately documented in a suitable source. I do seem to remember seeing an article in a magazine complaining about this implement, but I can't remember where. If I find it, I'll edit the article and add citation appropriately. WMMartin 05:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 69.37.249.85 regarding the juicer's usability; we have no problem with it. If the legs don't grip the surface, you may have lost the rubber pads attached to the juicer's feet, or the surface may be very slippery. Twisting the fruit with one hand and holding the juicer by its legs with the other should prevent any spinning or overturning.

I admit that the Juicy Salif is not the most practical device, but applying some common sense (and a suitable beaker to catch the juice) will let you use it for its intended purpose. I would have thought that people who just want the most functional juicer would not consider buying the Juicy Salif in the first place. Clearly, its design is its most appealing feature.

I agree with WMMartin that the comments so far on this Talk page are indeed irrelevant to the article and resemble more a thread on Usenet or some discussion forum, but IMO this particular bit of licence in the interpretation of Wiki rules doesn't cause serious harm. Michael Bednarek 11:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Converting to a stand-alone article

I have found at least two Wikipedia articles which discuss the Juicy Salif at length. I think it is time to consolidate this material into a single stand-alone article. Please be patient with me as I do this work. Reify-tech (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Onel5969 has reverted the stand-alone article, claiming that it is 85% WP:COPYVIO. I edited in good faith, and was completely unaware that there was a controversial previous article under this name. I have spent several hours consolidating material from two other Wikipedia articles, plus researching and adding a number of new footnote references. Other editors, please look at my revised version, and tell us what you think. I am not familiar with all the tools for detecting copyvios, but have always been very careful to avoid them myself, and have duly reported any copyvios that I have discovered and recognized. Is it possible that the copvio tool has matched on mirrored content of the other Wikipedia articles from which I moved specific content about the Juicy Salif?

Regardless, there is ample critical commentary about the kitchenware tool, pro, con, and otherwise. There is enough material to satisfy WP:NOTABLE criteria in a stand-alone article. Reify-tech (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I you copied from other WP articles, without attribution, of which there is none, that is still a copyright violation. Although the article this info was copied from was printed in 2012, so it could be that if you copied it from other WP articles, it is possible they were guilty of the copyvio first. Pinging two very experienced editors with copyright issues: Diannaa (talk · contribs) and Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs) for them to have a look. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Some of the content was moved from Lemon squeezer and some from Alessi (Italian company). This is not a copyright violation per se, but rather a violation of the terms of our license.— Diannaa (talk)

So Reify-tech's version can be restored and the revdel request removed? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Michael Bednarek; but as above, attribution is required. Reify-tech, are you going to deal with that? The best way is to use {{copied}} on the talk-page of the source and destination article(s). Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all, for explaining the issues, and (importantly) giving specific Wikilink pointers to more details on relevant Wikipedia policies. The majority of my edits are the addition of original (not copied from anywhere) content, or restructuring of articles by relocating content within a single article. I have also successfully proposed and implemented several wholesale renames and merges of articles. This was one of the rare occasions when I moved selected content from more than one article, but also left most of the source articles' other content intact. I was completely unaware of the need for or the use of the {{copied}} template for documenting this more-complex and subtle procedure.

Thank you Justlettersandnumbers for suggesting a reasonable way to move forward. The Wikipedia copyvio wardens have a disconcerting tendency to slap down offenders (regardless of intentions) with a curt, uninformative message. This may be an unfortunate consequence of the large number of copyvios they deal with daily. As a longtime editor (>10 years, ~24,000 edits), I realized that this Talkpage would be a good place to ask for more information about the specific details of a copyvio problem, but I worry about the effect that peremptory slapdowns of newbie editors will have on their morale.

Separately, I have been battling with a flaky trackball/mouse which sporadically seems to issue spurious commands which delete, revert, or duplicate some standard editing actions. I have been trying to troubleshoot the software aspects, and now think that flaky hardware might be the culprit. I have ordered a replacement trackball, and may take a short break from Wikipedia editing while I try to resolve this aggravating computer problem. Reify-tech (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I've now placed attribution notices on the 3 relevant talk pages. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)